Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-arm] [PATCH 0/6] arm: support -cpu max (and gic-version=max)

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:10:31PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 January 2018 at 14:41, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On 22 January 2018 at 18:33, Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> About QOM type names:
> >>
> >> On x86, all CPU models are resolved to "<model>-<suffix>", and
> >> i386 and x86_64 have different suffixes.  So the QOM type name is
> >> "max-x86_64-cpu" on qemu-system-x86_64, and "max-i386-cpu" on
> >> qemu-system-i386.
> >
> > OK. Looking at the target/arm code we do a similar suffix
> > trick, but we seem to have cut-n-pasted the handling in
> > aarch64_cpu_register(), so it uses the TYPE_ARM_CPU as the
> > suffix, rather the TYPE_AARCH64_CPU.
> 
> ...and that's not as simple a fix as I thought, because the
> code in helper.c for implementing arch_query_cpu_definitions() and
> arm_cpu_list() assumes it can create the QOM type name by appending
> TYPE_ARM_CPU. The ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME() macro which we use pretty
> extensively also assumes the suffix is the same regardless of
> what CPU type it's being applied to.
> 
> Looking at x86 it seems that TYPE_X86_CPU expands to a different
> string for qemu-system-x86_64 and qemu-system-i386. I could do
> that, but it seems very confusing: I would expect a QOM type
> name like TYPE_FOO to always mean the same QOM type.

Yeah, I don't like the way TYPE_x86_CPU works, and I don't
recommend doing the same elsewhere.

> 
> Given that the type names don't appear to the user, I think
> we can go ahead with implementing "-cpu max" for Arm without
> having to first disentangle this? "max" isn't in any worse
> a position than the existing "host" and "any" types.

Sounds reasonable to me.

-- 
Eduardo